Ye, Mercurial's named branches, unless I'm forgetting something, are simply an additional piece of information on each commit. It is part of the core of Mercurial, and is referred to as branch. In git this is not available.
What is available in git, and is referred to as branch, are what would be called by the Mercurial people light-weight branches, as they exist for a period of time, then they get deleted. In Mercurial this is available with the bookmarks extention (which is part of the Mercurial bundle mind..). Additionally when you commit a branch in git you do what is called a fast-forward; which in Mercurial is referred to as a rebase. That is the branch commits are rebased on top of the tip of the destination branch (master in git, and the main head of default in Mercurial). Anyways, most of things between them are the same, and I wouldn't feel handicapped if I had to use git instead of Mercurial, as most of what I need is available in one form or another in git. :) Dale -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
